18-3719 Giron v. Garland BIA Kolbe, IJ A216 333 740
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of July, two thousand twenty-one.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________
JESUS EDUARDO GIRON, AKA JESUS BAUTISTA GIRON, AKA JESUS GIRON BAULTISTA, AKA PECAS UNKNOWN, AKA LITTLE BOY UNKNOWN, AKA CHELE UNKNOWN, Petitioner,
v. 18-3719 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _________________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Vilia B. Hayes, Dustin P. Smith, Carl W. Mills, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Song Park, Acting Assistant Director; Colin J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
Petitioner Jesus Eduardo Giron, a native and citizen of
El Salvador, seeks review of a November 21, 2018 decision of
the BIA affirming a June 1, 2018 decision of an Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
Jesus Eduardo Giron, No. A216 333 740 (B.I.A. Nov. 21, 2018),
aff’g No. A216 333 740 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 1, 2018). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history.
We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
BIA, i.e., minus the findings that the BIA did not reach.
See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522
(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder,
2 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). The issues before us are
whether Giron’s proposed social group of “witnesses who
assisted law enforcement officials against violent gangs” is
cognizable and whether he established that the government of
El Salvador would acquiesce to his torture.
For withholding of removal, an applicant must show he
would “more likely than not” be persecuted “on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(1), (2); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42),
1231(b)(3)(A). To constitute a particular social group, a
group must be “(1) composed of members who share a common
immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and
(3) socially distinct within the society in question.”
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014);
see also Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 72–74 (2d Cir.
2007). “To be socially distinct, a group . . . must be
perceived as a group by society.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I.
& N. Dec. at 240.
As an initial matter, there is no merit to the
Government’s contention that Giron’s social group as defined
in his brief (“witnesses who assisted law enforcement
3 officials against violent gangs”) differs from his proposed
groups before the agency. His counsel defined his social
group the same way twice at his hearing before the IJ, and
repeatedly stated that the social group was based on Garcia
v. Attorney General, 665 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2011), in which
the social group was similarly defined, see id. at 504.
Although the IJ did not explicitly consider this proposed
group, that was not necessarily error because Giron did not
testify or present evidence that he had assisted law
enforcement. Moreover, the BIA explicitly considered whether
that group was cognizable.
We find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Giron’s
proposed social group is not socially distinct. Although we
have recognized that a group consisting of cooperating
witnesses can meet the social distinction criteria for a
particular social group, Gashi v. Holder, 702 F.3d 130, 137
(2d Cir. 2012), Giron’s case is distinguishable. In Gashi,
the group consisting of cooperating witnesses to war crimes
was socially distinct to both “potential persecutors and the
wider Kosovar society” because the list of potential
witnesses was published, people in Gashi’s village knew he
had spoken to investigators and criticized him for it, and he
4 was attacked twice and threatened. Id. In contrast, Giron
did not present evidence that he had provided any specific
information or assistance to law enforcement privately or
publicly. See Paloka, 762 F.3d at 196 (“[W]hat matters is
whether society as a whole views a group as socially distinct,
not the persecutor’s perception.”); see also In re C-A-, 23
I. & N. Dec. 951, 960 (B.I.A. 2006) (“Recognizability or
visibility is limited to those informants who are discovered
because they appear as witnesses or otherwise come to the
attention of cartel members.”). Further, Giron’s country
conditions evidence reflects that witnesses under criminal
protection in El Salvador are targeted by gangs, particularly
after their identities have been revealed at trials, but it
does not otherwise suggest that witnesses are seen as a
distinct group given that anyone who defies the gangs for any
number of reasons (e.g., extortion, gang membership, sexual
advances) is targeted. See Ucelo-Gomez, 509 F.3d at 73
(“When the harm visited upon members of a group is
attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary
criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped
away from considering those people a ‘particular social
group’ within the meaning of the INA.”).
5 Accordingly, because Giron did not show that his proposed
group was socially distinct, the agency did not err in denying
withholding of removal as a result. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3); Paloka, 762 F.3d at 195.
Unlike withholding of removal, CAT relief does not
require a nexus to any ground. See 8 C.F.R.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
18-3719 Giron v. Garland BIA Kolbe, IJ A216 333 740
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of July, two thousand twenty-one.
PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________
JESUS EDUARDO GIRON, AKA JESUS BAUTISTA GIRON, AKA JESUS GIRON BAULTISTA, AKA PECAS UNKNOWN, AKA LITTLE BOY UNKNOWN, AKA CHELE UNKNOWN, Petitioner,
v. 18-3719 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _________________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Vilia B. Hayes, Dustin P. Smith, Carl W. Mills, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Song Park, Acting Assistant Director; Colin J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
Petitioner Jesus Eduardo Giron, a native and citizen of
El Salvador, seeks review of a November 21, 2018 decision of
the BIA affirming a June 1, 2018 decision of an Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
Jesus Eduardo Giron, No. A216 333 740 (B.I.A. Nov. 21, 2018),
aff’g No. A216 333 740 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 1, 2018). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history.
We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
BIA, i.e., minus the findings that the BIA did not reach.
See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522
(2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder,
2 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). The issues before us are
whether Giron’s proposed social group of “witnesses who
assisted law enforcement officials against violent gangs” is
cognizable and whether he established that the government of
El Salvador would acquiesce to his torture.
For withholding of removal, an applicant must show he
would “more likely than not” be persecuted “on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(1), (2); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42),
1231(b)(3)(A). To constitute a particular social group, a
group must be “(1) composed of members who share a common
immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and
(3) socially distinct within the society in question.”
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014);
see also Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 72–74 (2d Cir.
2007). “To be socially distinct, a group . . . must be
perceived as a group by society.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I.
& N. Dec. at 240.
As an initial matter, there is no merit to the
Government’s contention that Giron’s social group as defined
in his brief (“witnesses who assisted law enforcement
3 officials against violent gangs”) differs from his proposed
groups before the agency. His counsel defined his social
group the same way twice at his hearing before the IJ, and
repeatedly stated that the social group was based on Garcia
v. Attorney General, 665 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2011), in which
the social group was similarly defined, see id. at 504.
Although the IJ did not explicitly consider this proposed
group, that was not necessarily error because Giron did not
testify or present evidence that he had assisted law
enforcement. Moreover, the BIA explicitly considered whether
that group was cognizable.
We find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that Giron’s
proposed social group is not socially distinct. Although we
have recognized that a group consisting of cooperating
witnesses can meet the social distinction criteria for a
particular social group, Gashi v. Holder, 702 F.3d 130, 137
(2d Cir. 2012), Giron’s case is distinguishable. In Gashi,
the group consisting of cooperating witnesses to war crimes
was socially distinct to both “potential persecutors and the
wider Kosovar society” because the list of potential
witnesses was published, people in Gashi’s village knew he
had spoken to investigators and criticized him for it, and he
4 was attacked twice and threatened. Id. In contrast, Giron
did not present evidence that he had provided any specific
information or assistance to law enforcement privately or
publicly. See Paloka, 762 F.3d at 196 (“[W]hat matters is
whether society as a whole views a group as socially distinct,
not the persecutor’s perception.”); see also In re C-A-, 23
I. & N. Dec. 951, 960 (B.I.A. 2006) (“Recognizability or
visibility is limited to those informants who are discovered
because they appear as witnesses or otherwise come to the
attention of cartel members.”). Further, Giron’s country
conditions evidence reflects that witnesses under criminal
protection in El Salvador are targeted by gangs, particularly
after their identities have been revealed at trials, but it
does not otherwise suggest that witnesses are seen as a
distinct group given that anyone who defies the gangs for any
number of reasons (e.g., extortion, gang membership, sexual
advances) is targeted. See Ucelo-Gomez, 509 F.3d at 73
(“When the harm visited upon members of a group is
attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary
criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped
away from considering those people a ‘particular social
group’ within the meaning of the INA.”).
5 Accordingly, because Giron did not show that his proposed
group was socially distinct, the agency did not err in denying
withholding of removal as a result. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3); Paloka, 762 F.3d at 195.
Unlike withholding of removal, CAT relief does not
require a nexus to any ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
To be eligible for CAT relief, an applicant is required to
show that he would “more likely than not” be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of government officials. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361
F.3d 161, 170–71 (2d Cir. 2004). “In terms of state action,
torture requires only that government officials know of or
remain willfully blind to an act and thereafter breach their
legal responsibility to prevent it.” Id. at 171.
The agency did not adequately explain its denial of CAT
relief. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 77 (2d Cir.
2005) (“[W]e require a certain minimum level of analysis from
the IJ and BIA opinions denying asylum, and indeed must
require such if judicial review is to be meaningful.”). The
agency expressed “considerable concern” that Giron would face
harm in El Salvador, but nevertheless denied CAT relief
because the government had “declared war on the gangs” and
6 taken steps to detain and kill suspected gang members.
However, the agency failed to consider and explain the impact
of evidence that the Salvadoran government’s efforts in the
“war on the gangs” had not been successful, such that gang
members operate with impunity and security forces commit
extrajudicial killings of suspected gang members, both of
which pose threats to Giron. See De La Rosa v. Holder, 598
F.3d 103, 109–10 (2d Cir. 2010) (remanding for agency to
further address government acquiescence when evidence
indicated that government was unlikely to be able to stop
torture despite aid from some officials).
The 2016 State Department country report provides that
impunity persisted in El Salvador despite government efforts
to prosecute corrupt officials, that authorities were not
able to control gangs in many neighborhoods, and that
authorities could not protect freedom of movement due to gang
activity. A United Nations report states that corruption and
gang infiltration of the police and military lead to high
levels of gang impunity while those security forces who target
gang members subject them to excessive force and
extrajudicial killings. Giron’s expert reported that the
Salvadoran government’s declaration of a war on gangs
7 resulted in increased gang violence.
While the agency need not “expressly parse or refute on
the record each individual argument or piece of evidence
offered by the petitioner,” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted), the agency
has a duty to consider all material evidence in the record,
Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 275 (2d Cir. 2005); see
also Poradisova, 420 F.3d at 77. Given the agency’s failure
to discuss the country conditions evidence indicating that
the Salvadoran government’s effort to control gang violence
has been unsuccessful and that gangs continue to operate with
impunity, we grant the petition as to Giron’s CAT claim. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c); Yan Chen, 417 F.3d at 275; Poradisova,
420 F.3d at 77.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED in part and GRANTED in part and the case is REMANDED
to the BIA.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court